LM301H vs LM301H-EVO

[Lou66]

So another quetion would be, are harvesting times increasing along with yield?

My understanding is that commercial facilities harvest of a schedule, no matter the state of plants. This additional growth could explain how harvest yields increase. It doesn't even matter if they get just 1 % more yield for 2 % more light energy consumption. The fixed costs (rent, HVAC, labour) of such an operation are so high, that this is still economical.
If you're producing medium quality flower or something that is further processed (extracts, edibles) then it would be easy to blend something immature in. Everyone is talking about producing the very best of the best but that market is easily saturated. Large scale operations target other markets.

 

[Have2]

I've posted a bit already about both red and far red in this thread, so without repeating myself (and cluttering up this thread), what exactly is it you would like to know?

Results vs different ratio of F:FR I'll reread just to make sure I didn't miss information.

 

[cdgmoney250]

First image shows how deep the canopy is and how bleached the tops are.

Not to be contrarian, but I don’t see any bud bleaching in any of those photos you posted. Some potential light stress, but not bleached buds.

So another quetion would be, are harvesting times increasing along with yield? And if so, doesn't this represent an increase in yield over watt-hours or not?

I don’t think gauging harvest times was part of the scope of their studies, though harvest times can be manipulated through means other than light intensity also (dropping air temps, reducing root temps, shortening daylight hours).

If you increase yields by1% but your watt-hours increase by 2%, then you have actually gone backwards.

This is not actually how business works.
The company said they experienced a linear 1% increase in yield for each 1% increase in total ppfd, up to 1800 ppfd. (But plants were illuminated up to 2500 ppfd)

Say hypothetically, they were to run 50 Kilowatts to illuminate 1500sq ft. of canopy at an average of let’s say 1200 ppfd. Let’s say their average yield was 150lbs over 9 weeks (63 days). They want to increase light intensity to 1800 ppfd by lowering the lights, so total light watts aren’t affected. They are running an average of 600 Kilowatt Hours per day (from lights). Over the whole run they are using about 37,800 Kilowatt Hours.

If the yield increases by 1% for each additional percentage that ppfd increases (up to 1800ppfd), the. They should experience approximatey a 33% increase in yield, according to the study. Let’s say this caused their plants to push out more growth and they ended up finishing in 10 weeks (70days) instead of 9 weeks.

If the yield/intensity trend were to hold true, they have now used 42,000 KW Hours over 10 weeks, approximately a 10% increase in energy from lights, but have also yielded almost 50 lbs more (199.5lbs) about a 33% increase.

Depending on flower prices and electrical prices, the net gain will vary. But for discussion purposes, let’s say flower is going for $800/lb and electricity is going for $0.29/KW Hour.
The additional light energy used for 1 extra week would cost $1218.00. The additional revenue from 49-1/2 lbs more yield would be $39,600.00 for the flower cycle.

Even accounting for 1 weeks additional payroll, as well as 1 more weeks worth of environmental equipment running, I’m pretty sure the increase in yield would VASTLY outweigh the additional overhead costs.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Not to be contrarian, but I don’t see any bud bleaching in any of those photos you posted. Some potential light stress, but not bleached buds.

Look a bit closer at the first photo.

I don't know what their overheads are, but a 10% increase in cycle time is a 10% increase in overheads.

But in terms of pure efficiency it would go backwards. 1% more yield for 1% more PPFD (almost) cancels out, but you also need to deduct 10% of that 1% increase in yield for the longer flowering cycle. The reason 1% PPFD doesn't cancel out 1% yield is because it takes more than a 1% increase in energy to produce that 1% extra PPFD if using the same lights, as LED efficiency drops as you increase current.

You may be right that the extra yield is worth it. What I want to know is do they have to increase their grow space to accomodate that extra yield? Optimum yield for any given variety has an optimum amount of light and space – all other things being equal.

If you increase light, you need to increase canopy saturation. Unless that extra light penetrates further to increase yields in the lower canpoy . . . but that only works if the canopy is not very even to begin with. So you probably weren't at optimim levels to begin with.

This is what high levels do to my plants. This is normal at around 900 PPFD.


This is at 1300-1400 PPFD – the calyxes just keep developing and foxtailing at the top of the plant even though the lower canopy is ripe. Harvest time for this 10-week strain was delayed by almost two weeks. This is the same strain under the same lights (higher intensity) with the same nutes and environment.

 

[KitnerPush]

I'm still stuck on the question whether intensity is more important than spectrum when it comes higher production. I remember blasting my plants with excessively high PPM's with the 3000k lm561C diodes when they first hit the market and the results I got were incredible, and so were results grown under higher CCT's. I think in large part the grower mindset has been stuck on the whole blue for veg and red for flower ideology as adapted through growing with MH and HPS. Red light is perceived as bright sunlight by plants (bugbee) and I noticed the spectrum radiating from the lights above the dude in the photo doesn't seem very red. That could of course be a color correction in the photography. It would be interesting to see a side by side between a 6500K 90cri and 660's at 1800ppfd vs a 1000ppfd 'balanced spectrum' light. No, I take that back, it would be REALLY interesting to see...

 

[tstick]

The "future" (the next year or so) in grow lights is going to lean to tunable spectrums and lenses that redirect the light for better spread.

 

[KitnerPush]

So I'm not at all happy with where this thread has ended in terms of the initial question. My conclusion is still that if you are using 660nm red diodes, you might as well use 5000K H EVO only, or B EVO for double spike blues. If you are using white only then I could see the importance of mixing lower CT and Higher CT for a more balanced veg/flower light. Even better if going full white, would probably be to use higher CRI diodes for added red spectrum and some higher FR in the spectrum. If Philips are using straight Red/blue diodes in their commercial fixtures, I do not see how using more efficient (bluer) whites in combination with red diodes wouldn't be as good all whilst providing green light. It would actually be more useful if the diodes were represented in %blue %green and %red and so on...although the datasheet do give clues.

Comments would be appreciated

I'd like so see a good argument for using 5000k H EVO only along with 660nm red, and possibly adding FR to make up 5-7%.

What would be the optimal ratio in this case? Has HLG hit the nail on the head with their Diablo and DiabloX, or the tomahawk? What about their new greenhouse lights? Anyone have any info on them?

 

[Jonesfamily7715]

I think where hlg hit the nail on the head is when they quit using only Samsung. Id like to see more diversity in that department.

 

[sfw1960]

I think where hlg hit the nail on the head is when they quit using only Samsung. Id like to see more diversity in that department.

100%
Seoul Semiconductor LEDs are no joke and I'd never drive em as hard as a standard issue HLG fixture - the same panels are available for the average Joe to put three kilowatts to if that's what they want.
The lab results are on the commercial fixture pages I believe but I'm not interested in the price without the commercial rebate and don't need another type of lighting for me.

 

[Lou66]

So I'm not at all happy with where this thread has ended in terms of the initial question.

Without data you get just endless arguments. People like prawn who went in a completely different direction, fan boys who defend their latest purchase and some people who just like a good conversation.

I also like to point out how the EVO are always viewed as being a 'green' LED without ever discussing if the 437 nm blue spike that is clearly dominating the spectrum is ideal.

 

[cdgmoney250]

My conclusion is still that if you are using 660nm red diodes, you might as well use 5000K H EVO only, or B EVO for double spike blues.

Why 5000K only if using 660nm? I get simplifying the design, but I would think you would want a more broad spectrum from white chips (regardless if mixing color temps or not) and supplement 660nm as necessary.

Since most common spectrums are driven by 450nm pumps, I believe mixing the Evo Mints (437nm peak) with some other broad spectrum neutral/warm white chips would do a better job of covering the blue end than just Evo Mint chips + 660nm.

 

[sfw1960]

So rather than higher CRI a broader spectrum mix is beneficial?
Go figure...

No wonder the High Lights are peppered with various colors and produce wicked dank flowers, huh?
Facts are almost any white light based LEDs will grow great flowers and messing with the colors may or may not help you get more or better bud. If cheap is your main choice then you shouldn't complain about them failing earlier than a well built unit. Top shelf components cost more for a reason and if you want your lights to last buy with a good warranty from a company that will back it up.

 

[KitnerPush]

Why 5000K only if using 660nm? I get simplifying the design, but I would think you would want a more broad spectrum from white chips (regardless if mixing color temps or not) and supplement 660nm as necessary.

Since most common spectrums are driven by 450nm pumps, I believe mixing the Evo Mints (437nm peak) with some other broad spectrum neutral/warm white chips would do a better job of covering the blue end than just Evo Mint chips + 660nm.

Because with 5000k you are getting the efficiency bump, and by using red diodes the need for warmer white light in my opinion is arbitrary. More red means lower overall CCT anyways... Recent studies show that plants don't care as much about color temperature anyhow, and 437nm diodes are more aligned with chlorophyll in the plant and apparently yields better flavinols and potency.

We're not able to get any straight answers from anyone on this? I think at this point we are just going on the general studies made by Samsung.

 

[sfw1960]

IDK that 5000 kelvin is that useful but I have been using straight 3000k for years with good results and I haven't used the mix of 5000k I have here.
If you're looking for answers to specific questions you should ask the OEMs directly and not on an open forum for the specific details you seek. Though I have many Samsung LEDs I don't think they are the leadership of choices and most of the posts here are indeed arbitrary opinions like the ones you mentioned in the last post.
Using "pure white" LEDs contain plenty of blue and you can see it when you examine the OEM spectrum charts & lab reports.
The Diablo X has a nice Red Spike that's far above the rest of the colors and no big blue piled up to match your opinion on the colors needed as shown below.
There's guys here that have forgotten more knowledge about LEDs and related driving circuitry than I'll ever know or have, yet I prefer to build my own stuff and probably will be doing it when I can. They don't jump in and start conversations with people who don't have the same level of knowledge as they do because they are usually designing fixtures and they do it for a living. I've doodled with electronics for a good hunk of my life and ran a communications electronics repair shop in the late 70's - early 80's and enjoy DIY of many facets.


Why are these two so different yet they both will grow weed?
(Note the 2nd image has zero Red diodes and only whites.)
Any way to explain that to the audience here if you would be so kind - we would like to hear your thoughts about it...
OH ~
Welcome to RIU too!

 

[Sickofitall420247]

Which spectrum should I use for max yield? Also how long should I run the far red for 12 hours or 15 minutes after lights off?

 

[igna]

@sfw1960
With these two spectrums you can harvest flowers, but the plants will be morphologically different.

Plants have many photoreceptors, these are called antenna pigments. That is why it can be grown under different spectrums.

 

[KitnerPush]

According to this spec-sheet of the Diablo X boards, the CCT is 5398K! With that many reds, it seems they are using 6500K diodes? What ever happened to Old Mother Sativa? He used to test the CCT and I think he said he noticed little or no morphologically difference between the two CCTs.

 

[Sickofitall420247]

View attachment 5371988View attachment 5371989View attachment 5371990
Which spectrum should I use for max yield? Also how long should I run the far red for 12 hours or 15 minutes after lights off?

Bump

 

[Rocket Soul]

According to this spec-sheet of the Diablo X boards, the CCT is 5398K! With that many reds, it seems they are using 6500K diodes? What ever happened to Old Mother Sativa? He used to test the CCT and I think he said he noticed little or no morphologically difference between the two CCTs.

OMS is not on riu anymore, since a few years back but we speak from time to time on icmag.

As for diablos; again cct is for our eyes more than the plant.

 

[KitnerPush]

OMS is not on riu anymore, since a few years back but we speak from time to time on icmag.

As for diablos; again cct is for our eyes more than the plant.

He was a cool cat!

So you agree that using 6500K with enough 660nm is better than using 3500K and lower amount of 660nm diodes? (UV and FR aside) as it is more efficient and will produce a higher quality product?